Dodgers Forget They Left Brooklyn In 1957, File Complaint
Against Brooklyn Burger Over Logo

Fifty-three years ago, the Dodgers told the borough of Brooklyn to shove it up its nose with a rubber hose and lit out for the warmer climes of Los Angeles. Now they’ve returned — well, at least their lawyers have — to file a trademark infringement complaint against a local burger company for daring to use a similar font and the word “Brooklyn.”

The L.A. Dodgers (note: L.A., as in 3,000 miles away) have gone after the owner of Brooklyn Burger because they think the logo and name would somehow, possibly in some world, confuse people into thinking the burger company was associated with a team that hasn’t existed in over half a century.

The Brooklyn Burger logo was actually approved for trademark back in April, and yet the Dodgers have just filed their official complaint with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Brooklyn Burger’s lawyer tells Gothamist that the whole thing is just stupid:

People who see [Brooklyn Burger’s logo] in Brooklyn aren’t going to think the Brooklyn Dodgers are selling hamburgers… It’s crazy for the Los Angeles Dodgers to claim exclusive rights to the word ‘Brooklyn.’

If you check out the Brooklyn Burger site, you’ll see that the company is actually the official meat patty provider for a Brooklyn baseball team — the minor league Cyclones in Coney Island.

UPDATE:
A rep for Major League Baseball tells the L.A. Times that the complaint was actually filed by the league on the Dodger’s behalf:

We filed the complaint on behalf of the Dodgers… As MLB, we are obligated by law to protect our trademarks or we are at risk of losing them. We filed the notice of opposition with the trademark office in order to keep our options open. We are continuing to examine the situation.

Wow, that’s quite ridiculous. What world do the lawyers for the baseball team live in? You can’t claim ownership to the word “Brooklyn” (because it wasn’t theirs in the first place), and you can’t claim a font happens to be similar to yours, when the font is standard cursive writing!

Well the fonts are completely different and in the US you can’t copyright/patent a shape that is why Arial and Helvetica look exactly the same. They have no reason for this, seriously to keep their options open? That’s bullshit…

You’re right, for the photos presented. A quick Google image search brought up several examples of very similar script used by the team for the word Brooklyn, including one where it was across the front of an officially-licensed-by-MLB uniform shirt. Goliath wins again.

Sure, the team hasn’t existed for awhile, but does the organization still own a trademark? Sears.com, for example, sells a Brooklyn Dodgers jersey, and the logo looks very similar to the Brooklyn Burger. Not the same, but similar. Enough to constitute infringement? I dunno, but it’s pretty close.

A) They didn’t “sue” Brooklyn Burger, they filed a complaint in response to a trademark application that Brooklyn Burger had themselves filed.
B) Nobody is claiming “exclusive rights to the word “Brooklyn”, as the misinformed quote said. They’re claiming rights to a specific graphic representation of the word “Brooklyn”, for which they OWN A TRADEMARK.
C) If Sears is selling a Brooklyn Dodgers jersey with official MLB tags, you can be damn sure that they have authorization to do so.

I mean, for fuck’s sake, doesn’t anyone READ what’s going on before they start writing about it anymore?

If you’re using that mark in trade, I would say that you have the beginnings of an OK case. On the other hand, that cursive logo is way more distinctive (a term of art) than TNR. Also, that script logo is definitely connected to Brooklyn Dodgers, meaning, it has “acquired distinctiveness” (another term of art). In other words, it’s not as simple as you make it out to be.

Um, while they may have somewhat similar serifs, those are NOT the same fonts. The Dodgers need to get over themselves. If they are feeling regret about leaving Brooklyn, then they should have some talk therapy to work it out…in LA…where they reside.

I think the NY Attorney General should make the Dodgers move back to Brooklyn if they want to enforce their suit. Bonus points if the residents of Brooklyn are allowed to give “dem bums” the proper sendoff they missed out on back in the day. Double bonus points if they can work a package deal to include the Giants!

Sure they do. They’ve been using that logo (not just the word “Brooklyn”, but that particular stylized representation) as part of their business operations since, according to the trademark registration, 1939. The fact that they’re no longer located in Brooklyn is irrelevant.

The Twins (and MLB) could fight someone using a particular styled version of the word Senators, if it is the one they used before they left DC and they trademarked it and have been keeping the trademark since. The same goes for the team now known as the Texas Rangers.

If a movie or TV show set in the 1950’s wants to include an item with the Brooklyn Dodgers’ logo, they have to pay the MLB money. If MLB stopped defending that logo against infringement, movies could use the logo all day long without paying them a dime.

That is why they continue to defend logos for teams that no longer exist.

I think whoever owns merchandising rights to his image gets money if someone else uses it. I’m not sure if that’s Lisa Marie or what. I don’t know how that would affect Elvis impersonators. It’s a good question, though.

While I get what people are saying here, is there anybody that *REALLY* believes this burger place didn’t choose that particular font, color and style because of its association with the Brooklyn Dodgers? It sure seems obvious to me that’s why the burger place chose it. That’s pretty much the definition of infringement. Absolutely MLB should get the burger place to knock it off.

So are you suggesting that Brooklyn “anything” is not allowed to use a script font?
You are right that one still shouldn’t infringe on the Dodger’s property, regardless of their current location, but those fonts look different to me and anyone else who looks even for a moment.

uhh, sorry, if you change your name, especially after you quit out on the best borough in NYC (yes, i’m a proud Brooklynite !!), then you essentially give up your rights to use it for your now crumby team

that organization doesnt even know who owns it

i dont see them going after dodgeball makers or the automaker, that must be less ridiculous

so if i wrote BROOKLYN in script/cursive, i have to pay a royalty ?

i’d like them to come down and negotiate w/ our mafioso associates, lol

Re: “As MLB, we are obligated by law to protect our trademarks or we are at risk of losing them.”

If the business they’re suing isn’t misusing the Dodgers’ trademark — which is quite obviously the case here, since there is absolutely no way that a burger place in Brooklyn, NY could possibly be confused with an MLB team in L.A. — then there is nothing to be lost, and no reason to sue to protect it.

The ‘Update’ is a crock of shit. Looks like someone took a page from the Monster Cable bullshit (lawyers) office and is now trying to wipe their collective asses with it.

Next someone is going to tell me I can no longer use my initials to initial paperwork because ‘Someone’ ‘somewhere’ might get confused and think that the company that shares the same initials as me did the actual endorsement of what the hell ever it was I happen to be signing.

They have a trademark, it is there right to enforce it. I know in Canada at least, a trademark has to be used or it will be expunged. There’s a good chance they are still selling and profiting from retro Brooklyn Dodger apparel.

One issue though is that the trademark applies to apparel and not the restaurant industry.

Kind of arrogant to assume that a professional sports team would be the only ones that could think up or use this logo & font. Or someone 50 years later who might not even know who the Brooklyn Dodgers were would be ‘stealing’ their design.

See the problem here is that the statement from MLB the “we are obligated by law to protect our trademarks or we are at risk of losing them.” is 100% false. They are not obligated by law to do any such thing. They are allowed to sue in cases where they may be consumer confusion, but they are not obligated to in order to keep their trademark.